“Praxis Collective” and “Shaheed Bhagat Singh Disha Manch”
two rabidly Stalinist-Maoist organisations in India, had recently locked horns
with each other in an argument which encompasses issues from character of
Russian revolution to assumption of power by capitalists landlords in 1947 in
India.

Not to our surprise, both of them have condemned each other again
and again, as ‘Trotskyist’. However, one would search in vain for any trace of
Trotskyism in the arguments advanced by either of the two. While both are
engaged in deciding if the ‘stage’ of revolution in India is democratic or
socialist, both have tried their best hands at worst abuses against each other.
Not a single para is spared from such demeaning abuses. This depicts the
cultural standards these Stalinists-Maoists have acquired from the schools of
historic falsification, in which they are educated.

‘Praxis Collective’ is the organisation of disgruntled
elements who start worshipping the party and program of Stalinist CPI and then
take a somersault crediting the Indian Bourgeois with fulfilling the democratic
tasks of revolution by 1964, and thus advocate a ‘new socialist revolution’ in
India. Advocates of Mao-ism, they are betrayers of revolution, who supported
naxalbari peasant uprising but turned their back on it in face of police
repression and started to sing for socialist revolution. The group is connected
to RCLI under Shashi Prakash, and works under ever new names, ‘dayitvabodh’
'ahwan' ‘bigul’ ‘praxis collective’ and many more.

“Shaheed Bhagat Singh Disha Manch” is a splinter of SUCI
organised by Shibdas Ghosh, which has left the party, but remain adhered to its
basic perspectives. For his whole life Shibdas Ghosh strived to curry favour with
Mao Tse Tung, virtually worshipped this Chinese Bonaparte, in bright hope that
some day Mao may back his party instead of CPM and CPI-ML.

Most degenerated among the Stalinist-maoist groups in India,
both groups are rooted in Stalinism-Maoism, and agree to its all basic
postulates, like ‘two stage revolution’ and ‘socialism in one country’ etc.
None of them, however, has formed any party, nor presented a comprehensive
program.

Though the discussion has been held at our back, deliberately to keep it away from our notice, but as mischievous attempts have been made to defame and demean the October
revolution and its co-leader Trotsky, by publishing false assertions, distorting the facts, propositions, and mechanics of the revolution in
Russia, China, India and elsewhere, WSP is thus forced to intervene, to set the
record straight.

The person of Trotsky, the organiser
of first soviet in Petrograd in 1905, co-leader of October revolution with
Lenin, the creator of red army in Russia, the first Foreign Commissar, War
commissar during whole period of war till 1925, organiser of Comintern with Lenin-
the one who wrote all thesis for first five congresses of Comintern, elected
chairman of Petrograd soviet, chief organ of revolution in 1917 and who
reconstructed shattered railways in USSR, needs no introduction.

We will deal first with ‘praxis collective’ and thereafter
with “Disha Manch”. Below, we are publishing Part-I, of the series of articles
that we propose to publish one by one, dealing with assertions of these
Stalinists-Maoists.

Part One

Absurd Lies of Stalinist-Maoist ‘Praxis Collective’

Praxis Collective asserts that Trotsky stood in opposition to
Lenin on characterisation of impending Russian Revolution. According to it
Lenin proposed a democratic revolution in Russia but Trotsky believed that
there cannot be a democratic revolution and proposed a socialist revolution
instead, for which Lenin condemned him for overstepping.

This is height of absurdity!

Trotsky was in total agreement on the bourgeois democratic
character of Russian revolution and he never proposed stepping over the
bourgeois democratic revolution or substituting it for ‘socialist’ revolution
for backward countries, with belated capitalist development.

The fact is, that all three currents led by Plekhanov, Lenin
and Trotsky, agreed among themselves as to the bourgeois-democratic character
of the impending revolution in Russia, i.e. one emanating from the
contradiction between emerging capitalist economy and the ossified political
state of Tsarism.

Then where lied the disagreements among these currents?

The dispute is: whether the dictatorship of the proletariat
would appear at the start of the democratic revolution, or would be realised at
the fag end of the democratic revolution?

To understand this, we must comprehend first of all, the correct
political positions of the three marxist currents, embodied into Menshevism,
Leninism and Trotskyism respectively, not only on the question of character of
revolution but also its driving force and which class would it bring to power.

From the agreed notion of ‘bourgeois-democratic’ revolution,
Mensheviks deduced the conclusion that ‘bourgeoisie’ is the natural leader of
the revolution and legitimate claimant to the power. So they concluded that
impending revolution in Russia would bring bourgeoisie to power. Menshevik’s
though that working class is too weak in Russia being too small in numbers, the
capitalist economy was too backward in Russia and peasantry predominated the
population. So they advocated a role for the workers to constitute the radical
left wing of bourgeois, assist it to take power and push it to more and more
left, till capitalist economy matures enough for socialism and thus for taking
power by the proletariat. For Mensheviks, thus dictatorship of the proletariat
would be realised only at the end of the democratic revolution.

This Menshevik proposition obviously fragmented the
revolution in ‘two stages’- now bourgeois-democratic led by capitalists, and
later socialist led by proletariat. Needless to say, in this formula, no role
was sanctioned to rural peasantry.

Basis for this ‘stage-ist’ proposition of the Mensheviks were
the old bourgeois revolutions of Europe- France, Germany, England- where
bourgeois had taken to power, organising itself at the head of national
revolution. In that, they forgot that those revolutions had taken place before
imperialism has come into existence, rendering national bourgeois in backward
countries powerless, and at a time when working class, the real contender to
power, was not even born as a class.

Lenin and Trotsky, both severely criticised and disagreed
with the Menshevik proposition, which sanctioned leading role to the bourgeois.
Both of them agreed between themselves that Russian capitalists have no role to
play in the revolution, much less a leading role.

Both Lenin and Trotsky agreed that it is the combination of
working class and poor peasantry, which would lead the revolution, establish
its dominance over it and would be catapulted to power.

Having agreement on the fundamental positions regarding
character and driving forces of the revolution, both Lenin and Trotsky, thus stood
hand in hand, and in stark opposition to the Mensheviks on the estimation of role
and character of national bourgeois.

As to the character of the state that would be delivered
through the revolution, Lenin left open the question of ‘real’ dominance of the
‘class’ inside the combination of workers and peasants, while proposing a
“democratic dictatorship of working class and peasantry”. Trotsky specified it,
“Dictatorship of Working Class backed by Peasantry”, which meant a combined
state of workers and peasants, under dictatorship of working class.

One can see with open eyes that the agreement between Lenin
and Trotsky, in contra-position to Mensheviks was of fundamental importance,
while their differences on the question of alignment of revolutionary classes
inside the state were of secondary importance.

However, Bolsheviks erred too, in estimating the strength of
working class ‘inside’ the precincts of Russia, and not as section of the
international working class. So they also put themselves under the
misconception that the working class may or may not claim dictatorship in the
alliance with the peasantry and thus cannot set out to accomplish socialist
tasks, alongside the democratic ones.

Trotsky, in his “Results and Prospects” published soon after
the uprising of 1905, wherein he being one of the chief organisers of the
Petrograd Soviet, the centre of rebellion, summarised the results of the
uprising, and proposed that the impending revolution would open up as a
bourgeois democratic revolution, but uninterruptedly grow over to a socialist
revolution. Trotsky also proposed, that in all prospects, the revolutionary
proletariat, marching at the head of rebellious peasantry would transform its
dominance over the national movement into its class dictatorship, backed by peasantry.
Trotsky, predicted that the dictatorship of the proletariat would appear at the
start of the democratic revolution and as necessary condition for its advance.

This way Trotsky proposed the dictatorship of proletariat
followed by peasantry, inside a combination of workers and peasants,
constituting themselves as the revolutionary state. The agreed slogan was “No
Tsar- But a Workers’ and Peasants’ Government”. Trotsky developed his ideas
later into a whole theory of “permanent revolution”.

It would be worth mention here that a fourth proposition, was
made by the German Revolutionary Parvus, common friend of Lenin and Rosa
Luxemberg, in a series of articles published by him in Lenin’s Iskra, under the
heading “War and Revolution”. He proposed the slogan, “No Tsar, but a Workers’
Government”.

After comprehending the positions of the chief political
currents in Russian revolution, now we can return to ‘praxis collective’. We
have shown above that Trotsky has never proposed a socialist revolution by
over-stepping the democratic revolution and that there was no disagreement
among the Russian revolutionaries on this aspect. It is more than clear that
‘praxis collective’ do not possess even a trace of the idea of contending
perspectives in Russian Revolution!

‘Praxis Collective’ has not even attempted to read Trotsky,
would be absolutely clear by its statement, in concluding part of its article,
“against foolish and immature caricature of Marxist-Leninist principles’, where
after condemning Trotsky for his assumed denial of democratic revolution, it
categorically says, “These ideas were expressed by Trotsky in 1905 in his book
‘permanent revolution”. In fact, the issue was dealt by Trotsky in his book
“Results and Prospects” in 1906 and not in “Permanent Revolution” which was
written and published in 1929. This wrong citation of the book with incorrect
year, coupled with absence of idea of what Trotsky said, shows beyond any pale
of doubt that ‘praxis collective’ is arguing in the air, without even looking
at the relevant text.

In their write-up dated 1.10.2012, under the sub-heading “on
the next step of foolishness....”, ‘praxis collective’ asserts: “This is the
principle of uninterrupted revolution of Trotsky, according to which, in the
present era under all conditions, the democratic revolution (whether it is accomplished by the proletariat
or the bourgeoisie) would arrive at socialist revolution without a break”.

As is shown above, Lenin and Trotsky are one on the issue
that bourgeois has no role to play in democratic revolution, much less a
leading role. Then how can the bourgeois accomplish a democratic revolution?
Where does ‘praxis collective’ gets it?

Secondly, Trotsky has never even said that the democratic
revolution would arrive at socialist revolution, by itself. As we have quoted
earlier, Trotsky talks of “growing over of the democratic revolution”into socialist revolution and inseparability
of the two tasks as the same are so mingled with each other in backward
countries.

For this ‘growing over’ of democratic revolution in an
uninterrupted manner into socialist revolution, the fundamental condition is
the leadership of the working class over the revolution.

Thus in Russia, where proletariat established its dictatorship
over the revolution in October 1917, the revolution became ‘permanent
revolution’ growing over to socialist revolution after opening as democratic
revolution and with few months halt due to stupidity of old Bolsheviks-Stalin,
Bukharin, Kamenev etc- who defied Lenin in supporting provisional government.
On the other hand, in China, Stalinists aborted the revolution of 1925-27 and
later in 1949, the bureaucratic Maoist clique backed by peasant armies,
prevented the working class from establishing its dictatorship and put the bloc
of four classes in power, which included sections of bourgeois and petty
bourgeois. These sections, slowly grabbed all power and China grew over to a capitalist
counter revolution.

How the two positions, ‘permanent revolution’ on one hand and
‘two stage theory’ on the other found their refraction in practice? As we
contrast between the October revolution in Soviet Russia under leadership of
Lenin and the Chinese Revolution under Mao, issue emerges crystal clear.

Immediately after taking power in October Revolution,
Bolsheviks implemented 8 hour working day in industry through Congress of
Soviets. This measure was surely a democratic measure, and not socialist.
Capitalists however resisted it and locked out hundreds of factories. Bolshevik
power was forced to order acquisition and nationalisation of locked out
industries. Now nationalisation was completely a socialist measure. It turned
out immediately that all democratic measures, even least of them, even those
which are already sanctioned by advanced capitalist countries long back in
history, would meet savage resistance of capitalists. In crushing this
resistance, only socialist measures could be resorted to. So the two tasks of
the revolution- one democratic and the other socialist- merged for all
practical purposes, into one revolution. This way, at the moment proletariat
took power in October, the two revolutions, one emerging from contradictions
between Tsarism and the nation as a whole and the other between capitalists and
workers- merged into one revolution at the head of which marched the glorious
army of the city proletariat supported by proletarians of city and village.

However, things took altogether different turn as peasant
armies under Mao took over Peking. As workers demonstrated in Peking in support
of 8 hour working day, the Maoist Government prohibited all strikes and
demonstrations. Maoists, the Chinese Mensheviks, declined to sanction 8 hour
working day. Hostile to ‘permanent revolution’ and ardent supporter of
Menshevik-Stalinist formula of ‘two stage theory’, Mao declared China as
‘peoples republic’ under the rule of a bloc of four classes, that included
sections of bourgeois and petty-bourgeois.

So, contrary to wild accusations of ‘praxis collective’,
neither Trotsky ever said that a democratic revolution would enter in socialist
revolution, nor it can enter as such!

After showing fallacy of this incorrect notion of
‘trotskyism’ embedded in the mind of Stalinist-maoist “praxis collective”, we
now attract attention of the readers to the fact that this “praxis collective”,
does not at all speak about the position of Mensheviks in Russian revolution.
While criticising Trotsky at least 20 times for the sin he never committed,
‘praxis collective’ does not even mention or criticise Menshevik perspective
even once!

This is for a reason! We will elaborately show in later
parts that the positions of ‘praxis collective’ itself are replica of the
positions of Mensheviks, in that they are advocating the same ‘two stage
revolution’ and a subsidiary role for the working class in radical left wing of
the national bourgeois. ‘Praxis Collective’ is in total agreement with
Mensheviks, that dictatorship of the proletariat, would appear at the end of
the democratic revolution. More than once ‘praxis collective’ has also preached
the workers to act as ‘pressure group’ to push ruling capitalists more and more
to the left, to carry out ‘radical reforms’. While arguing for a ‘new socialist
revolution’ ‘praxis collective’, is making out a case for Indian Bourgeois
state, that as it has accomplished the necessary democratic task, the first
stage of revolution is over and we are in second stage- socialist stage. Even a
step ahead of the Mensheviks, ‘Praxis Collective’ is decorating the
capitalist-landlord government in India with a progressive role in addressing
the tasks of the democratic revolution, albeit in their words through “Prussian
path”. In coming parts, through our discussion of February and October, Indian
1947 and Chinese 1949, we will expose
the fallacy of their ‘Prussian Path’ and ‘new socialist revolution’ etc. and
will show how these disciples of Stalin and Mao have misled themselves, and
behind them those who follow them, on fundamental questions of debate.